Amano Tanks very low in nutrients - Discussion requested.

[unirdna]

That was a great post, Jason!

If you start your own thread re: this experiement (and I strongly suggest you do), please PM me so I don't miss it. I have dropped a tank from 15 to 5, and plan to maintain it there and see how things go. IMO, 5 is still a loooong way away from "less than 1 mg/L".

[Betowess]

Very interesting Jason. I must breakout my test tubes. Are you primarily using AP tests? Are you drawing on KH/pH for the CO2 calc? Must be. I thought many have assumed it isn't all that accurate. But I agree with trusting your instincts and eyes/ experience level. One can guage a little even by bubble speed on CO2.

On a recent re-start, I have been trying to use the JB go slow methodology. So far, so good. Crystal clear water myself.

[Jason Baliban]

Originally Posted by unirdna

That was a great post, Jason!

If you start your own thread re: this experiement (and I strongly suggest you do), please PM me so I don't miss it. I have dropped a tank from 15 to 5, and plan to maintain it there and see how things go. IMO, 5 is still a loooong way away from "less than 1 mg/L".

At the end of the testing, I intend to do a more formal writeup with some pictures. I will certainly keep you posted.

I think the key is lower co2. In a lot of ways it was frustrating.....very slow growth and the unknown....i felt like a newb again.

I think we all agree that plants need NPK....or they wouldnt be called macros I think what is confusing is that amano believes in substrate ferts more then column dosing. AS has a pretty good amount of macros in it, so i would think that 1ppm of N is really pretty close to what he has rolling. Also, his co2 is very low by american standards. And his lighting is lower as well. I know everyone will say "What about those 150MH pendants!!"......well if we look, they are all over 12" away from the water surface

In the end I will attempt to find a happy medium....somewhere around 5-10ppm of N and 15ppm of co2. I think amano is still afraid of P, and it has been proven by others and driven home by Tom that P does not cause all out algae like previously believed. I think that amano has some GSA issues because he is afraid of P. I would like to dose a little more then amano and way less then the current US standard.

Betowess - I am using Hagen kits. I have some lamotte kits that I am calibrating them with(thanks Erin) and a triple beam scale to be balls on with my dosing (assuming the fertilator is correct).

And you are right about the KH thing....but then again....nothing is accurate in this ridiculous hobby. So as you say, i am just estimating.

There is a small cult of us that are moving the pendulum back towards lower levels of nutrients. Its easier to control IME.

jB

[Yzmxer99]

I hate to add to this because what I have to offer it is unfounded, unscientific observations. But....

I have been running my Nitrates at 20ppm, Co2 at 30 to 40 ppm (Kh/Ph method) at P accordingly. With ADA aquasoil and powersand in my Mini-s (2.5g) with the 27w Mini S light at 8 hours.

I would clean the GSA and BBA bi-weekly and couldn't get the tank to settle.

2 weeks ago I did a good cleaning, dropped my Nitrates to less then 10ppm (tap measured at 10ppm with AP test), dropped my Co2 to 1/2 the bubble count and stayed constant with fleet, Brighty K, and Step 1 dosing. The thing is running so much clearer now. I just have a tiny smidge of gsa and the BBA is receeding. Plus, as Jason noticed, growth has slowed a bit but it's pretty dang good looking.

Now, I'm not offering up these numbers as proof of anything. All I'm saying is that in my instance running lean, alla Amano, worked in my tank with my water. I'm curious to see Jason's write up on his findings. Plus, as Jason said, I'm finding it easier to balance.

[unirdna]

Originally Posted by Yzmxer99

I hate to add to this because what I have to offer it is unfounded, unscientific observations. But....

Your observations may not be scientifically experimental, but they are derived from first-hand experience with ADA products. That's all I ever requested, and all we can really hope for at this stage. Thanks for sharing!

Again, another case of nutrients maintained on the low end, but still not in the realm of "less than 1 mg/L". Still, the conversation is moving forward.

[Betowess]

Now running higher ferts with AS is an algae invitation, right? I thought most folks tried to dose very few if any macros with AS and maybe just a little bit of trace. Sorry, not meaning to turn this into another Aqua Soil thread.

[Just40Fun]

Originally Posted by Jason Baliban

Over the next 6 months i will continue to tweak the system to see the effects. Recently, I planted the 75 with root tabs in three sections. Interestingly, a huge amount of NPK leeched into the water column. The fish seemed fine, but the 30-50+ppm of N in the water stunted almost every single plant and killed about 25% (some rare stuff unfortunately....sorry max) in my finely growing tank. I know I know.....more co2. Honestly, i am not playing that game.

This is very interesting, and it may just answered why sword plants were dying after they were added to my friend's fish only tank. (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/ge...imbalance.html )

A friend has a 125g fish only tank that he keeps mainly cichlids. His nitrate level has always been high in 80-100ppm range and gh/kg both in the 180-200ppm range. After he saw my planted tank, he also planted some a-swords and java ferns to enhance the looks and to reduce nitrate. He has 1.5w/g of lighting, no CO2 and wc every 2-3 weeks.

His swords and java ferns are doing very poorly, yellow leaves wilting away. His nitrate is still in the 80-100 range.

Why can't the plants use the N in the water column? Not enough CO2? Sorry for not staying on this thread.

[Hypancistrus]

Originally Posted by unirdna

I have theories on how Amano accomplishes healthy tanks with such low nutrient levels, and I'm sure you do, too. But, I want to hear something from the horse's mouth. So, please, if you have first hand knowledge of how/why Amano keeps his tanks with said nutrient levels, share.

It's not just Amano, it's just the general European and Asian way of doing planted tanks. They've been doing it that way for decades now, and it works great. It was the Americans who suggested dumping in loads of nitrates and phosphates. If you actually look at any of the big aquascaping contests, you'll see that the Europeans and Asians always cream the Americans. It's because they know that you are not going to achieve professional and artistic results with rare, delicate, and/or difficult plants by dumping in loads of nitrates and phosphates.

[slickwillislim]

They don't usually win with rare crazy plants. Its mostly the tried and true plants... no eriocaulon and tonina plants near the top. Best aquascapers don't always mean best plant farmers, but they are by no means poor, obviously.

I think we need to all choose whether we are pursueing the fastest healthy algae free growth or the most stable healthy algae free growth. I like many people pursued the hardcore I can grow faster than you methodology, I have come around, through a little maturing and greater understanding of the hobby, but i still can't help but be amazed by what a bunch of Co2, and macros can do.

I am trying an ADA Mini M set up right now. I had a little to much light in the beggining and I got Crazy stem growth, but a little gsa on one side of glass. I am trying to dose just Flourish, Flourish excel, Diy co2, and kso4. I am basically trying to replicate the low fertilizer low co2 you are describing. Slow growth would be great in such a small tank. I haven't been at it that long but it is growing the plants well.

Do you guys have any problems keeping plants red. I can't seem to find the right ballance to keep my red stems red so I hope this low fert solution will help balance it correctly and help me get some popping reds.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Betowess

Now running higher ferts with AS is an algae invitation, right? I thought most folks tried to dose very few if any macros with AS and maybe just a little bit of trace. Sorry, not meaning to turn this into another Aqua Soil thread.

I do not get algae with higher levels of nutrients.
I like to ask where's my algae issues?

I can easily slow plant growth down using light.
Why would I do it with low nutrients which makes measuring and dosing far more difficult?

Less light= less algae, less CO2 demand and less nutrient demand.
This is a very simple concept.

But the lower you go, the harder it becomes to measure and determine what and why things are working in the water column.............

Things get recycled more rapidly and to the point where measuring the water column becomes meaningless.............

Non CO2 methods are good example...........and if you lower the CO2..........as long as it's stable...........

But the question is is it really the nutrients?
Or is it the CO2 and/or lighting?

I'd say it's the lighting/CO2.
Those drive growth..........not the bottom up(nutrients) method.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

If you want to moan and whine about adding too much/loads, excess amounts of anything, moan and whine about adding too much lighting................

Or go non CO2.............the Dutch have many old contest exmapkles of low light very well scaped non CO2 tanks............

So should folks advocate no CO2 as adding "pollution" or dumping lethal gas in as fertilizer?

Why is it PO4?
PO4 does no harm to fish or plants.
Neither does NO3 over a huge range.

CO2 is more toxic than either..............but no one questions adding that currrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriously...........

I wonder why

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Jason Baliban

I have been doing some extensive experimenting with this. Granted I am not a scientist and my testing supplies are hardly super accurate. With all this stated my findings are sound for me and enough for me to express what i have seen.

Currently I am running 2 tanks with less then 5ppm of N in the water(probly closer to 2ppm...judging by my calculated dosing). My P is less then .5pmm also.

I started this experimenting with the same question as unirda. Another question i always had about amano's stated levels was his co2. Using KH/PH his co2 was always so so low. So i set out to see what i could accomplish with these levels.

Tank specs:

75 gallon with 220watt PC lighting for 10 hours.
KH 3
GH 10ppm
the tank uses flourite so i was able to use a controller without KH interference.
I ran my co2 at about 8-10ppms
dosing left me at a consistent >5ppm of N and >.5ppm of P at the end of each week. I ran this setup for 6 weeks. All plants grew full and healthy.
I also found that i had crystal clear water.....and ZERO GSA. VERY SLOW GROWTH, but very healthy.

50 gallon with lower light 110 PC lighting for 10 hours
kh 3
gh 10ppm
aquasoil for substrate. I estimate my co2 to be around 10-12ppm
dosing is even less in this tank. I dose about .5ppm of P a week and 5ppm of N a week.

This tank is growing even better. N in the water column is almost unreadable.

So it is absolutely possible to grow beautiful plants in very limited conditions. IME, i prefer the slow growth. I am a scaper, not a farmer. The slower the better IMO.

Over the next 6 months i will continue to tweak the system to see the effects. Recently, I planted the 75 with root tabs in three sections. Interestingly, a huge amount of NPK leeched into the water column. The fish seemed fine, but the 30-50+ppm of N in the water stunted almost every single plant and killed about 25% (some rare stuff unfortunately....sorry max) in my finely growing tank. I know I know.....more co2. Honestly, i am not playing that game.

Inspired by kekon, amano, cp1007, and edwards co2 myth thread, I am attempting to grow plants slowly and healthy while providing a low co2 environment for my critters.

The only draw backs have been some very slight algae issue......until i added amano shrimp. That ended that very quickly. And also very slow growth.

Sorry that my post was less the scientific.......but this is what i am finding and i am more then confident in my eyes

Let me know if you have any comments.

jB

jB,

Look at the APD's older post, many of us, myself included maintained very low levels of NO3 for many years, throttling between 2-10ppm. It can be done and you may have some very nice results.

Measurements of accurate CO2 are another matter.

you need to measure the CO2 over the course of a day when the plants use the CO2.

One point in time is really not going to tell you much.
ADA's values are not possible via any known CO2 determination method that I or anyone else is aware of.

They are not likely to be averages either over a week, over a day or over a month etc.

One point in time does not show nor correlate with plant growth/health etc either. I can do a 50% water change and change that level in 10 minutes.
Plants will adapt to various routines given enough time.

Same with CO2, but the main thing is stability of the routine.
Many found trying the low NO3 cause them issues when the bottomed it out.
Adding another source to the sediment, somewhere you folks have not really considered measuring allows lower water column levels if that is your bag.

But I think many assume that these low levels in the water column are holding the algae back and that is just not true.

I think less light is one of the easiest methods and the key to maintaining and slowing growth. You may still have high light for a little while 2-4 hours etc, but not all day and slow growth dramatically.
Aquascaping, algae control and plant growth are different foci, many confuse these.

Likewise, non CO2 approaches have been looked down upon for many years.

Yet based on your and many folk's arguments, that is what you should be using.

Less light, no CO2 and hardly any work, but still nice growth.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

I think you folks might be asking a different question here............horticulture and management vs plant growth preferences.............

Plants do grow better with more CO2, more light, more nutrients, and nutrients in both(WC and the S), not one or the other location.

Management is an entirely different issues.

Growers focus on growing species etc, a scaper or a horticulturalist tend to focus more on a specific plant that fits their needs and looks aesthetic/easy to care for etc.

In that case, the non CO2 approach, something that pre dates everyone here and ADA by decades as far as time in this hobby, wins and beats every method in terms of cost, simplicity and management.

Perhaps you are just learning the virtues of slowing growth for management, but that is hardly exclusive to ADA.

You can slow growth with nutrients, with CO2 or light.
Given light is the main driver and the point where photosynthesis starts off at, it makes the most sense to limit that one first.

From there, less light = less CO2 demand.
No surprise there.

Why would it be?

That affords you all sorts of wiggle room in any method.
Not just ADA's.

Tropica tried to make this clear.
Low light(which cost less over time/initial cost) and good CO2.
So did George Booth, so have I.
So has ADA, but most do not listen..........

But many think more light and CO2 and then limiting nutrients is smarter for some reason that escapes me.

ADA does not suggest that, nor do most European growers either.
They might remove the N and P and put it in the substrate, but that's due to the belief, not the reality, that it limits algae.

That notion is easily disproven time and time again.
Simply because you can grow plants well at lower nutrient levels with CO2/light etc does not mean higher levels of nutrients are bad or anything, that's the assumption..........and it's dead wrong.

But the idea that plants can adapt to less and they most certainly can and do, it is not invalid. I'm not sure, but some seem to believe I suggest that is not the case, which is total crap.

I just know that it does not offer an advantage(lean NO3/PO4 in the water column) for algae control and I have proven it so many times as others have for a very long time now.

What do folks really expect here?
Less nutrients = less growth/slower growth.
Less CO2=> obviously less growth.
Less light = less growth.

Have issues with pruning etc?

Switch the plant species, add rocks, driftwood, etc, anything that removes fast growers and swaps them with less troublesome species.

These are not so much a method or anyones, these are more broad and common sense things.

You can limit PO4 and slow CO2 uptake, and NO3 uptake. Try it and see.
You can limit NO3 and slow CO2 uptake and PO4 uptake as well.

You can limit things in the water column and not in the substrate......or you can limit things in the substrate and not in the water column.

Merely because one works, does not imply that the other does not or is better really............even if you have personally have trouble with it............
It just means you have not mastered that balance yet and there may be many reasons for that.

I'd suggest you try to master several methods and watch how one things influences the other. Learn each method well and make sure you start out with a healthy tank or are able to induce specific species of algae that gave you trouble, remove then, then induce them back again.

I see many folks discovering another method they happen to strike a decent balance with. They think it it's superior and it is.........for them at that moment with what they happen to be doing............but there's a lot more room for improvement and many reason they where not successful with the other method.

You really should try and figure out why if you feel that urge to understand and learn more. If all you care about is nice tank, less work, decent scape etc, go non CO2, use easier plants, nice bioload, lots of herbivores, no water changes etc.

I think otherwise most run a risk of thinking/assuming correlation =-> causation.

Then someone reads it and thinks that must be the case and another round goes through the hobby............try confirming your hypothesis and falsifying it.............yes, try to disprove the idea you made..........

Folks have said and claims all sorts of poppycock for many years about how NO3, Fe, PO4, etc..........all cause algae.............at excess levels but I do not have algae, so it cannot be right..........

It might be something else, but it cannot be due to that or a combo of them.
Just try out a slow growth low light tank and see.
Then try a non CO2 tank.
Then and PO4 limited tank.
Then a NO3 limited tank.
Then a soil and inert sediment tank etc.

And for heaven's sake, use a real test kit and make sure those readings are accurate.........

This takes work, time, money and resources, I generally have no motivation to do such test for more than a few weeks.....after that I get my question answered and I go back to less test labor intensive methods. Others have done these same exact test many years before most of you started keeping plants, and such info is available...........

Do some background checking and read what has been done before you.
It'll save a lot of time for you and see what others have thought about and expected/results etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Jens]

Originally Posted by plantbrain

I do not get algae with higher levels of nutrients.
I like to ask where's my algae issues?

Tom, are you claiming that you don't have any GSA in your tanks at all time?

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Jens

Tom, are you claiming that you don't have any GSA in your tanks at all time?

Yes, for many years now.
It's inducible using CO2 and with PO4 though.
This is old news, going back ton the APD many years.
Rather high levels of PO4(2-3ppm) with decent CO2.

I might need to wipe glass once every few weeks.
Same deal in a non CO2 tank, even when I add KNO3 and KH2PO4.

Regards,
Tom Barr